View Full Version : This place needs a good I4 turbo thread!
OK, where are we so far...
The Tom Anderson article (http://www.cart.com/News/Article.asp?ID=5306) that started it all.
A good page on the 1500hp BMW-Brabham (http://www.research-racing.de/bmwturbo.htm)
And a page of specs on the Eagle GTP MKIII (http://www.allamericanracers.com/eagl_mkIII_gtp.html)
And a nice pic of a turbo Offy (http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/drake_offy_73.jpg) circa '73. This engine was making about 825hp @ 8500 in the Eagles & McClarens at the time. Someone made a good point on another thread that in going to an I4 turbo, CART could make reference that it creates a link to the turbo Offy and it's history as a successful Champcar engine.
I know Pook said again in Autosport that they'll likely use V10's in '05, but remember that this time last year we all thought the 3.5L Tonymotor was a sure thing. I know the most recent story is that Pook wanted to keep the 2.65L turbo all along, but there was another story floating around last year that John Lopes kept bugging Pook to keep the 2.65L turbo, and Pook disagreed, until one day when he had a sudden change of heart... supposedly not long after Jon Vannini made some noise. So never say never!
Napoleon
01-12-03, 11:56 AM
And your just the guy to start it.
I have come to beleive they should go with a I4 based on production engines.
Originally posted by Napoleon
I have come to beleive they should go with a I4 based on production engines.
I've been leaning towards a stock block and heads turbo four for at least a couple of years now. The more I think about it the better I like the formula.
It would be really interesting to open the formula to more than row engines -- V4s and flat 4s should be allowed as well. I'm also becoming more intrigued with the idea of formula that encourages a transverse engine layout for blocks that are used in that fashion in production cars.
A transverse I4 or V4 would be a really interesting packaging excersize and produce the shorter champcar I think would be helpful in restoring passing to the races.
A transverse I4 or V4 would be a really interesting packaging excersize and produce the shorter champcar
I agree. Being able to move the driver further back might be good. But would it substantially hinder the undertray/tunnels with a tranverse mounting?
Napoleon
01-12-03, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by ChrisB
But would it substantially hinder the undertray/tunnels with a tranverse mounting?
Why would it? I don't think it would make a difference.
Originally posted by ChrisB
A transverse I4 or V4 would be a really interesting packaging excersize and produce the shorter champcar
I agree. Being able to move the driver further back might be good. But would it substantially hinder the undertray/tunnels with a tranverse mounting?
Frankly, I'd rather that the tunnels end at the mounting points for the engines in all configurations.
Originally posted by ChrisB
A transverse I4 or V4 would be a really interesting packaging excersize and produce the shorter champcar
I agree. Being able to move the driver further back might be good. But would it substantially hinder the undertray/tunnels with a tranverse mounting?
Frankly, I'd rather that the tunnels end at the mounting points for the engines in all configurations.
Originally posted by ChrisB
And a nice pic of a turbo Offy (http://www.netaxs.com/~gg1/race/drake_offy_73.jpg) circa '73. This engine was making about 825hp @ 8500 in the Eagles & McClarens at the time.
In 1973 they were making more horsepower than that. A good Offy at 110" of boost could make over 1,000 hp in qualifying trim, and an honest 850hp at 90" of boost for races. The problem was reliability was almost nonexistant. Those Offies spit out connecting rods as if the bottom of the engine was made out of tissue paper.
Mike Kellner
01-12-03, 02:00 PM
I would allow the tunnels to be as long as people want. I want as much of the downforce as possible coming from the tunnels, for better passing.
A transverse V4 might work. It would be very narrow.
As I have said before, with a 2 liter I'd put a bore limit on that yielded a stroke/bore of 0.6 or 10.2 Cm bore, 6.2 cm stroke. This would limit revs to about 13,500 naturally. You could still have an RPM race, but it would be hard to push it to stratospheric numbers and there would be little payoff.
I would use 50 inhg for ovals 70 inhg for road races, ie 700hp/1000hp.
Gurneyflap
01-12-03, 02:28 PM
Nah, if the cars will be lighter and smaller with slick new aeros we won't need 1000hp. I4Ts make sense, I supported that idea LONG ago, but look at the difference in lap times between the Atlantics and Champcars now. Where is 1000 hp needed to maintain that difference? Chris, I've read with interest ALL your posts on "1000hp" and agree with the idea of a dominant Champcar, but look what we're up against, here. The safety culture is, I believe, AGAINST higher speeds. Promoters and owners probably CAN'T spend more millions on track improvements. IF we are to be a "feeder series" with any connection or cooperation with F-1, we CAN'T be faster. And, there's always the cost factor. USUALLY 1000hp costs more than 750! Is your drive and desire fueled by a love of the past? A desire to be #1? Seriously, we know your wish, but why would power need to be any more than it is now with a new generation of I4Ts and tubs and tires? I'm a big road race fan, too, but with tracks of 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 miles and maybe more on the way, do we NEED 1000hp for any reason other than it just SOUNDS awesome?
Gurneyflap
01-12-03, 02:36 PM
PS-didn't midgets a few years ago run V-4 ChevyII, (?) engines, cut down from 6? I wonder what V4T version of that could produce? Remember the Cosworth Vega? I'm thinking a pretty potent turbo 4 would serve our purposes just fine, and the BEST thing about it would be to suck in all those young CalCarCulture people, who have now overspread the continent! What a great base to build from.
I would use 50 inhg for ovals 70 inhg for road races, ie 700hp/1000hp.
Amen! Since CART probably is not going to have more than 1 or 2 oval races, it's not likely that the engine makers would produce a second special engine optimized for the lower oval boost setting.
A desire to be #1?
Maybe not in terms of money, which F1 will likely always be the top, but with just a bit more boost, tire, and wing, the Champcars could match or even beat the F1 cars in pole/fastlap times. CanAm did this through "brute power" 30 years ago and matched or beat F1 "technology" for pole/fastlap times on the tracks they shared (Watkins Glen/Mosport). I generally like what Chris Pook's been doing, but I very much disagree with his comments that Champcars should be subserviant to F1. Here we are this week when they are finally annoucing their true identity as "Champcars" and Pook is still making these "F1 feeder" comments. F that... crank up the boost and beat 1:12.836 at Montreal!
Gurneyflap
01-14-03, 07:49 PM
F-1 envy, then? How'd you feel when those little AAR IMSA Toyotas were beating CART lap times on shared tracks? Believe me, when PJ Jones could beat Michael's lap times at Portland I don't think anyone was calling him a better driver, or CART was worrying about it's "place" in racing. I agree, I do not want us to be an F-1 feeder, but I don't see the need to outpace F-1 either.
The best thing about turbo threads is that while they may blow, they never suck.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.